What Sort of a President Do We Want?

[No nice pictures for this post; this is only for grown-ups.  Matter added later will be in Blue.]

The Internet is full of helpful information on this subject, and here is a place where (at Noon, EDT 2019/4/26) a lot of this information was summarized.  But we have to clear up our minds, and summarize, and tabulate and organize what we think our fellow-citizens need.

Normally we do not have to do this.  Ideally (I mean, if there wasn't that pesky Electoral College, whose effects we are really unable to adjust for, and that's why these hordes of Political Engineers are in business) we should just be able to vote for whom we want.  But now we have to keep an eye out for what it is that our---sometimes muddle-headed---fellow citizens might have at the back of their never-too-sharp minds.  Pardon my patronizing attitude, but I began to suspect long ago that the population of the US was not too bright, and nothing since then has made me change my mind.  When the electorate has done the right thing---in my opinion, I have to admit---it has been as the result of a large minority working very, very hard to urge that outcome.

It is beginning to look as though only a middle-aged, white, protestant, heterosexual, married and monogamous, high-visibility, moderate, business-friendly, ultra-patriotic, handsome, male candidate is appropriate.  John Kennedy was catholic, and that didn't turn out so well.  OK, maybe the fact that he was catholic did not affect the outcome, but the fact remains: he got shot.  Barack Obama was black, and that didn't turn out so well.  Hillary Clinton was (and is) a woman, and that didn't turn out so well.  Bill Clinton was a little not-so-monogamous, and he squeaked by only with great difficulty.

Can we keep the demographic of our potential Presidential candidates so narrow for much longer?  In my eyes, Barack Obama's presidency seemed brilliantly successful, but the majority seems not to agree.  It appears that even among the Democrats, there was some dissatisfaction with the choice of a black.  I think---and shoot me if I'm wrong---the Presidency needs to be nudged a little in the direction of diversity.  We've tried racial diversity (Obama), and the Conservatives just could not deal with that.  (They could; they just could not deal with Democrat success; the fact that it was a black president who was so successful made them even more sore.) and their idiot rank and file could swallow the racist objections better than they could swallow a confession of the political success.  Remember, in politics, it's not what you believe,but what you say you believe.  How about gender diversity?

Should we try a woman again?  The choice is between Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard, Amy Klobuchar, and Marianne Williamson.  (You can read all about each one at the link I gave above.)  Kirsten Gillibrand began to gain attention as an anti-sexual harassment champion, and she needs to be a little punchier, a little more multi-issue, before I support her.  Elizabeth W. is awesome, and I have no major problems with her.  Kamala Harris, too, is wonderful, but appears a little too easygoing.  (I take this back; I can't decide on Ms. Harris until I can see her in some non-prosecutorial circumstances.)  I don't know much about Mss. Gabbard, Klobuchar or Williamson.  Marianne Williamson is an author, and I imagine she must have got tired of telling everyone to take charge of their lives, and decided to walk the walk; good for her.  She has to do a lot of reading, or watch a lot of YouTube, as the case may be, and I will be watching the debates.  I have heard a few opinions such as that, well, that might work in Britain, but they're sissies.  That will never work here; only a guy will do.  US opinion moves slower than molasses, but I hope, for all our sakes, that it does move.  It is a pity that the Presidency is has become so much showmanship, and so little statesmanship.

I think we tried a businessman---thinking of Trump as a businessman for the moment---and I don't think that worked out well.  Quite apart from Trump's inability to play well with others, his support staff, picked from the business community, were a failure at running the country.  Of course liberals viewed their policies as disastrous.  But they were disastrous even for conservatives, and for business and trade, which displays a surprising inability of those from the business community to keep their eye on the big picture.  They can come back and tell us that we picked the wrong businessman.  But I disagree; we have to steer away from businessmen and business-friendly candidates for at least a short while.

The approach of the far-left Democrats to deal with almost every issue, is like maneuvering a large crate into position with a crane.  It's clumsy, but it's fairly direct.  The approach of the business and economics people to the same issues is like nudging them into position with a fire hose.  Indirect does not even begin to describe how ineffective it is.  You lower taxes, you tinker with the Fed, you screw around with trade deals, you talk about Walls . . . Wall Street eats it up (at least most of it), but that only tells us that the very big investors are doing well.  Not many of us are very big investors.  (Robert Reich is a liberal economist, who analyzes how various GOP policies effect the average taxpayer; he has a channel on YouTube.  You can check it out.)

We tried a professor---Obama---and that was not an total disaster.  (If Obama only had the good sense to be White, all would probably have been well!  Not my own joke.)  The closest thing is Elizabeth Warren, who will probably make life a lot easier for consumers, at least; I believe with her, that the Federal Government should clamp down on predatory banking and lending and soliciting practices.

People who are intensely concerned with the environment are singing my song.  Jay Inslee of Washington looks to be one of the most likely candidates to be aggressive on such things as Single Use Plastic.  If you didn't know, this is to minimize or eliminate items made of plastic that are intended to only be used once, from grocery bags, to ballpoint pens, to medical packaging.  He is white, male and handsome, but those are his only drawbacks (jk).

Well, that's just a start.  Bernie Sanders, for instance, is a strong contender, but that leaves our leadership in the hands of the older generation, and I feel that we must wean ourselves off from their paternal leadership.  We need younger, diplomatic and restrained leaders, who can handle new problems and threats with a certain amount of grace.  Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders can certainly do the job of President without turning the position into an international joke that, but there's something a little sad about scurrying to that generation for help with our problems.  If we can't find younger men and women to keep us together, then we won't have an option except to call on those aged uncles.

There are several minority candidates: Thulsi Gabbard from Hawaii, Cory Booker from New Jersey, Julian Castro from Texas, and Andrew Yang from California.  A couple of these candidates look very promising indeed, but I need to learn more about them before I start plugging for them.

Bear in mind that whoever is elected---and I'm expecting, and certainly hoping, that it will be a democrat---is going to have to decelerate the rate at which the gulf between the parties is widening.  You already see in the media, the talking heads clamoring for impeachment.  Impeachment will provide a lovely spectacle for the entertainment of the bored, and to increase the income of the News Business.  It also appears that the GOP thinks impeachment will help their people in the 2020 elections.  They're trying to present it as if not to impeach would be a black mark against the Democrat Congress.  I don't think anyone has a duty to impeach; it seems that pursuing impeachment is just an option.

Please do not stop with reading this post.  Do go out and study the candidates and their positions for yourself!  I don't have advertisements on this blog, so I don't owe it to anyone to do their work for them!!

What Americans Want, What They (Probably) Need

What Do Americans Need?

For anybody to attempt to answer this would have sounded arrogant a few years ago.  Today, though, because of the way various sub-groups have rejected the aspirations of other sub-groups, we have to thread our way carefully, and each Need has to be tagged to the groups that would need it most.  (Added later: I haven't done this, unfortunately.  Some of that is implicit in the item.)

Employment.  Because of the way Business has dealt with the problem of (at least, at one time,) rising wages by sending the work overseas, this has become a problem that is getting worse.  We have an unplanned economy, (the technical word for an economy where each citizen / family is essentially on his own, the way Capitalists like it) which means that it's up to each kid getting out of high school (and his family--pardon the gender non-neutrality) to find work.  Low-level, easy (in the sense of preparation for it) jobs are few, because of the outsourcing factor, and do not pay well.  High-level, more difficult (in the sense of preparation, again) jobs are even fewer, because you either need to have connections, or the Chinese do it better, and for less money.

Clean Air and Water.  Everyone needs these things, and there isn't any way for each citizen or family to go out and find this for themselves; it has to be a community action.  That Flint fiasco should never have happened.  (That looks like a case of Political Engineering gone wrong.)

Public Education.  Each family trying to educate their own kids on their own dollar is wasteful of effort.  This is not the place for people to compete with each other for educational resources.  As I have said, each child is a resource for the entire nation.  To some that may sound like some sort of communist idea, but if you have been a teacher you look at some young genius in your class, and you don't immediately think: oh, he's going to make a lot of money someday!  You should think: I hope he's going to find a cure for cancer for all of us!  (Of course, some of you are probably thinking: Just like a liberal: telling people what to think.  Hey, this is the sort of Blog where all I do is tell you what to think.  Love it, or leave it!)  All education should be community sponsored, and by community I mean the entire nation.  This doesn't mean the classrooms should be clogged with unmotivated kids throwing paper airplanes at each other.

Housing.  I don't say that everyone has to be given a mansion on top of a hill, or a penthouse suite.  I mean that basic housing should be available to everyone.  Fancy housing will be your own problem.

Public Transportation.  Public transport is in everyone's future.  The poor need this, because personal transport is going to become more expensive, and the maintenance of unsafe legacy automobiles is going to become even more expensive, because as wages go up, there won't be fly-by-night repair shop who will fix and certify your junker for peanuts.  Old cars are fine, but they must satisfy high anti-pollution and mechanical standards.

Clean Energy that--at least presently, and probably for ever--does not aggravate Warming.  Again, this has to be a communal effort; it is inefficient for each family to go out and scrounge their own energy for themselves.  And we should minimize all energy-wasteful activities.  Minimize, maybe not eliminate entirely.

Control of Extortionary Business Practices.  Not everyone is a financial genius, and as we age, even the most brilliant among us will tend to succumb to predatory insurance offers, or loans and similar shifty things that come in the mail.  Abruptly rising credit-card interest rates, unexpected rent increases, crooked lawyers, all these things must be carefully looked at.

Law Enforcement and Security.  It could be years before there will be a comfortable relationship between Law Enforcement and citizens, especially minorities, but that day has to come soon.

US Businesses that Process Plastic Waste.  Most communities across the nation do extract plastic from household 'recycling', and separate it from metal and paper.  Much, if not all, the plastic has been exported to China, which recycled the plastic.  But since late last year, China has refused to do this, for political reasons.  But why outsource plastic recycling?  The US can probably do it better and more cleanly than the Chinese can, except, of course, we're going to have to pay the workers US wages, which is fine.

Mandatory Recycling At All Levels.  This already exists, to some degree, for businesses: they must recycle Flat White paper--that is, paper from photocopiers or printers, possibly shredded--and certain very specific classes of other waste.  I don't see why they shouldn't be made to recycle everything.  Personal recycling, too, should be encouraged strongly.  Clothing, books, household implements, electronics, etc, should be diverted away from landfills, and put back into use at the highest level.  By 'highest level', I mean that for instance a cast-iron skillet should recycled into a skillet (carefully cleaned and refinished), rather than recycled as scrap iron.  I encouraged my students to use the blank backs of discarded printer paper to do their homework on; of course the government cannot enforce anything as peculiar as that.
[Added later, also see here: America has a recycling problem. Here's how to solve it.]

What Do Americans Want?

To the extent that we want the things listed above, that's fine.  But there are some things that have been traditionally desired, which are not possible to supply, given the enormous deficit that has been incurred by forgiving some of the most lucrative Businesses and individuals their taxes, and the hostile relationship that exists between the US and our trading partners.

Strongest Possible Military.  We have historically--at least since 1941--had this, but it has only got us into trouble.  Furthermore, many of the vendors of our military equipment, if not all, are US companies, that do not hesitate to charge premium prices.  At the moment, more than half the US budget is spent on the Military.  This must make someone rich, but whom?

Best Possible Education System In The World.  This is a laudable goal, but education achievement requires two things: Interest, and Industry.  There is a large population of teachers in the US that could deliver an excellent education to students in, say, third world countries.  But US students expect better efforts on the part of teachers, which means that they're sort of 'Insulin-Resistant', to borrow the language of diabetes.  The Industry requirement is also a problem, because a lot of the young people out there consider the thinking involved in doing homework to be drudgery.  Finally, since businesses and other employers try to extract the last iota of intellectual effort from their employees, there's little mental energy left for them to give judicious help to their kids: give a little help, a little explanation, but not to do the homework for the kids.

Drive around in flashy, gas-guzzling personal transport.  This reflects a pet peeve of mine.  What's worse is that these vehicles are often noisy, and for some reason automobile noise is tacitly considered by some as part of their First Amendment rights.  Finally, there are a few youths who drive in a way intended to intimidate those in smaller, lighter vehicles, so that the whole thing is an expression of a sort of entitlement to bully.

Own a mansion on top of a hill.  This is fine, as long as it already exists.  I don't think we can afford to continue lopping off hills and sticking homes on them.  That disrupts the water absorption patters of the area, encourages small-scale flooding, makes it difficult for firefighters and police to get up there in case of an emergency, and puts an additional burden on local government to provide access.

Pay little or no tax.  This may be possible eventually, if community needs are deducted from revenue in a mechanical way before they get into the hands of individuals.  Quite honestly, the belief that society exists for the benefit of the most wealthy has a lot of truth in it.  Society builds the roads, society buys the merchandise, society staffs the small businesses that enable the wealthy to maintain their style: dry cleaners, restaurants, jet planes, airports, sewage treatment plants, schools, gasoline stations, bookstores.  So the most wealthy should pay for them.  The wealthy teach their kids that part of the privileges of the wealthy are just to pay the tag price of commodities.  No, to the extent that society makes it possible for these ordinary people to live, the wealthy must subsidize that expense.

Banks must be allowed to charge any interest rate they want for College Loans.  In most cases, I suppose in a free society, anyone should be able to charge anything they want.  But in the case of education, banks tend to charge higher rates and impose unfair conditions on students simply because there exists a sort of de-facto collusion among banks to do so.  If free education becomes a reality, this problem mostly goes away; students who want an expensive private education will have to deal with the banks, but for most students, at present, college loans are an unfair burden, especially since employment cannot be guaranteed.

Industry should be permitted to manufacture plastic goods as they please.  This is no longer feasible.  The right to manufacture goods out of plastic ends where the right of people to live in a world free of plastic waste begins.  Even importing inessential plastic goods must be stopped, or discouraged with heavy tariffs.  Some things, such as plastic tubing for medical needs, etc, will be difficult to replace with substitutes, but it is probably not impossible.  Bear in mind that the dwindling energy needs that are satisfied with petroleum will not allow channeling of some of it to be made into plastic; allowing The Market to decide whether petroleum is used to make plastic or gasoline is insane.

Litter At Will.  This is something that saddens me.  One way to address this problem, is to hire a cadre of people who simply roam about policing people's littering offenses.  People hate Meter Readers with a passion, but endure them.  Well, it seems to me (and I'm no expert,) that littering falls under the same general class of offense.  Well then, there we go.  The workers could be paid at least partly based on fines, and could be required to take video of the offense taking place!  Alternatively, people could be hired to clean up litter. (Unfortunately, this might actually encourage young people to litter, simply as a game they play, to bait litter-cleanup workers.)

Arch

Keeping Eyes On the Ball

The elections are next year, but some panic mongers are already getting into the whole 'Be careful: naughty people are getting ready to screw up your favorite candidate!  Give us money!' game.  This just might be legitimate, but it could also be a protection racket.

There has always been a lot of money in politics, for sure, but also surrounding politics.  Campaign advisers, marketing consultants, pollsters, demographics specialists, spin doctors, game theorists, make-up artists, talking heads, lobbyists, and all sorts of other people falling into the general category of political engineers, a particularly vicious segment of the trickster population, make tons of money, both from political candidates, and from the people who want them elected.  No wonder our candidates are constantly asking us to "Chip In" with a dollar or two.

Since so many of them are asking us for money, and claiming that the Democratic Party has made a rule that only candidates who have contributions from at least 65,000 supporters will be allowed on the platform for the primary debating season.  This is a just barely reasonable rule for the DNC to impose on this unusually large field of candidates, to try and cut down the numbers.  (We've got to give them credit; if they had said that they would only include candidates who receive total contributions of at least $50,000,000, or something like that, I would be really upset.)  And why do they want some evidence of backing before spending the precious platform time on some given candidate?  Because they don't want to squander the resources of the debating floor on some "loser."

We certainly have had 'losers' in past presidential elections.  Unfortunately, 'losers' on the Conservative side have won, so it appears we have to take 'losers' seriously.  (From what little I know of these things, it looks as though the Republicans might not choose to have a primary election, and instead just ask the incumbent to be their candidate.  That would be pretty entertaining, if they struggle with that decision.)
 

Incumbents vs. Challengers for Democrat Seats; Senior Challengers vs. New Wave incumbents in Democrat Districts:  The dynamics of the 2018 election has created an interesting set of circumstances, especially since the GOP chose to stand behind an outsider who delights in being uncouth, unpredictable, and a scofflaw.  Somehow, the first couple of years of the term of office of our present fearless leader seemed to annoy women, and not without reason.  Men in government have been notoriously insensitive to the feelings of their female colleagues and their female constituents, and quite unreasonably supported organizations that supported family planning for men, but not for women.  In fact, (for apparently Biblical reasons,) there has been even murder aimed at those who supply family planning for women, and help with safe abortions, while being quite happy with giving men family planning at government expense.  Then, of course, there were two instances of sexual harassment that triggered a landslide of harassment accusations of men against women, and as a result, a large number of Democrat women were elected in 2018.  Some few of these displaced male Democrat Incumbents, and senior Democrats generally.

Make no mistake: a seat in Congress is a highly desirable thing to have.  The pay is good, and the benefits are excellent.  To lose a seat, even if to someone younger in your own party, is a terrible thing to happen to one.  But, you know, the electorate--though it accepts the rewards to those in Congress with resignation--is not so much interested in the comfort of the Representative as it is in how well Congress does its job.  The time when a sheer passenger in Congress did little harm if they simply voted with the crowd, is going away.  We need Representatives in Congress (I'm avoiding saying 'Congressmen' out of respect to the ladies in Congress) who can fight even when they're in the minority, as they well might be a few years from now.

Furthermore, two things are creeping up: (1) the cumulative effect of laws that favor the wealthy against the rest of us, and (2) the destruction of the environment, to save the wealth of businesses and businessmen.  Let's look at (1).  Reagan, in 1980, started the trend to reduce taxes for the most wealthy, though at that time, the wealthiest in the US paid far more in taxes than they do now.  They paid for infrastructure, the armed forces (which basically protects the assets of Big Business, if you think about it) the roads (which enables businesses to truck their junk across the country, and tempt us with produce from Mexico, while local produce lies rotting in the fields), for the airports (which enable businessmen to travel around, selling their wares to new and more stupid clients than before), and for education (which enables Businesses to hire people who are supposed to be able to do arithmetic and to spell).  Each successive GOP Congress and President lowered the taxes for the wealthy, and either raised taxes for the rest of us, or reduced services for the poor, which comes to the same thing, and (2) relaxed rules for protecting the environment, because it was inconvenient for Business.  Though this need not be the case, the Business Lobby, mainly represented by the Oil Lobby, has set itself in direct opposition to the Environment.

Democrat candidates, both Presidential and Congressional, have focused either on the environment, or on the amelioration of poverty.  The GOP has catch-phrases for everything, and lessening the effect of poverty is called Income Redistribution.  This is presented by the Haves as something really terrible to do.  But a good new approach to the total problem of poverty, taxation and health, and the environment is to view holistically.

Consider Health.  At present, if you have a job with good benefits, your employer deducts money for your health premiums, throws in its own contribution, and buys health insurance for you.  The Insurer makes some money off this, and the drug companies make money off this, as well as the hospitals and the staff.  If you have no benefits, or very little in benefits, you have to fall back on Medicare, or go to an emergency room, or simply self-medicate, and turn yourself into one enormous pre-existing condition.  Sickness and loss of work will make you poorer than you were before.  It makes a lot of sense to say that Healthcare For All is a matter of social justice.  Some people call it Medicare For All, because Medicare is already in existence.

Moving Too Fast
Many Democrats who consider the new wave of Democrat Congresswomen too aggressive, and, in some cases, too combative, are particularly unhappy with their espousal of the Green New Deal.  This is the name given to a plan whose early form arose from the Green Party of Jill Stein.  The present form of it, as put forward by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is reported by Wikipedia as follows:

• "Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.
• "Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."
• "Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."
• "Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."
• "Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."
• "Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."
• "Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."
• "Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."
• "Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."
• "Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."

I can just imagine how some conservatives would be incensed by the very thought of supplying ordinary people with a high-paying job, paid vacations, and so on.  OK, we could take paid vacations off the table if absolutely necessary, and add them in as circumstances allow.  The other items all seem preposterous and unworkable, but think.  If half the country is going to be underwater in a few years, why not scrap the armed forces, and use their money to get all this done?  Why waste all that money to protect a bunch of marshland?

Arch

What Can We Do?

At these sorts of gatherings (to discuss the Green New Deal, I mean) the question sometimes arises: What can we do at a personal level?

At least some of the panel members simply said: Why do it alone?  Join a group!

That's excellent idea; when you're swimming against the tide, or at least trying something that doesn't come easy, joining with a group of like-minded people has always worked for liberals (and it works for conservatives when they try it, more's the pity).  I think that should remain a major takeaway, and you don't need napkins with that.  (Just a joke--take away--napkins--get it? Phew.)

But there is one thing only you can do, and this is directed to young families with children.

The most difficult thing for this generation to do--not all of it, but many of them--is to hobnob with people outside their usual circle.  The Green New Deal is all about helping the underdogs, those who are most threatened by Warming, the concentration of wealth, the declining services that made life easier, and often just possible, the attacks on health care for the poor.  You can't help the disadvantaged if you aren't comfortable talking with them.  That's point number 1.  Just remember that.

Secondly, thinking about smart energy choices, one fact is unavoidable.  We must still get around, but personal transportation is too fuel expensive.  So obviously, Public Transport is definitely in our future, at least until mankind is extinct!  (Just kidding, again; that won't happen for dozens of years!  Haha!)

So, my thinking is, one thing each family can do, is to take the bus, or public transportation of any kind, with the kids, at least occasionally.  Of course, some young people will say, ew ew ew, there's going to be, like, people in the bus.  Just grin at them, kids.  Scary grins are fine; you get plenty of practice on the school bus, right?  Show them your teeth!  No, seriously: be nice; give up your seat to elderly people; smile warmly at the kids.  (Other people's kids are free entertainment that Nature has provided.  For me, that is; for religious people, God provides that sort of thing.)

Community clean-ups are another fantastic opportunity to join with neighbors, especially for the kids.  They might be the same old kids that come to school, but for some of us, whose kids go to private schools, this is a chance for them to meet regular, non-private-school kids.  I was about seventeen before I met regular kids on their own turf, and it was a very positive experience.

So, there you are.  It might be a difficult first step for some of my readers, but social involvement can't be done by remote control.  If it is uncomfortable, start small.

This could be easily one of the most practical bits of advice I have given on this Blog, so I really hope anyone who reads it takes it seriously, and refers it to their friends and neighbors.  Or rewrite it your way, and re-blog it; spread the word any way you like.

Arch

What Does "Messaging" mean? The Green New Deal, And All That

Our area is very conservative.  For years the local college--in contrast to the general population--was essentially moderate-to-liberal, but of late--with the rise of students who are interested in Business, and the faculty we need to service them, no doubt--the balance is shifting in the direction of conservatism.  So we, my wife and I, were pleasantly surprised to see a notice about a college panel discussion of 'What Is the New Deal?'  We went, and were pleasantly even more surprised to see that the room began to fill up, and soon it was completely packed.

There was an excellent, and well-informed panel, consisting of three professors from colleges close by, and three students, one from each of those colleges.  They took turns to give short presentations (only two of which were supported by slides!) and we were off to a healthy, moderate-paced discussion.  (I will talk about the actual topic at the end, if I remember to.)

One thing that stood out, is that the speakers talked about Messaging.  What is messaging?  (I just Googled that, and man, did that hang my browser.  Google wanted to know exactly who wanted to learn about this term, and to let some special clients know...)  Most of the entries reported that the word meant essentially Text Messaging, using the various applications that support that, but one entry caught my eye, and following up, I arrived at a page that contained the following text excerpt.  We can easily infer what that article considered to be messaging from the context:

Clearly the sense in which the word is used, at least by some people, is subtly different.  It means the ideas that are emphasized, when talking to important listeners.  It need not have anything to do with text messages at all; it is the spin we give when we're giving out information, especially when we're broadcasting information.

Furthermore, in today's communication world, people are beginning to realize that their audience only listens to those who are saying what the listeners want to hear.

Okay, I have made some enormous conceptual leaps here; maybe when most people talk about Messaging, they mean just sending texts.  Many others, though, mean that we have to be clear, and on the same page, when making important statements.  A few, though, mean that we should not alienate our audience with statements that conflict with their belief systems.

Some of the discussion (about the Green New Deal, and) about talking one-on-one with friends and neighbors about most topics that extreme conservatives do not believe in, e.g. global warming, energy conservation, environmental pollution, income inequity, social justice, access to family planning, universal healthcare, good faith negotiation of international treaties, voter access, support of education, supervision of banking, etc, brought up the issue of disagreeing with them politely.  This whole business of civil discourse is important, and I do not want to suggest that it does not make sense.  But we must disagree without making it impossible to resume the conversation another time.  (Of course, in many cases, the conservative side of the conversation just wants to say goodbye and head home, especially if most of their arguments consist of canned statements put together by their leaders who do not have much experience at rational argument, and do not have much of a scientific background.  We must have a diplomatic way of disengaging if our conversational opponent is not prepared to argue; literally not well prepared, and continuing will only end up humiliating him or her.)

One major point, which was part of the messaging of those putting forward the Green New Deal, is that it merges together the two apparently different agendas that the Liberals had been concerned with: Environmental Conditions and Global Warming on the one hand, and Social Justice on the other hand.  It isn't easy to see, but we are beginning to understand that these two concerns are two sides of the same problem.  The Green New Deal, therefore, combines the issues of Warming, of a Minimum Wage, of Tax Reform, meaning that those who earn the most must pay their fair share.  (Why?  Because they use the resources of the nation proportional to their wealth.  Work it out yourself.)  And Medicare For All, which is clearly a social justice issue, as is Education For All, and Immigration Reform, and numerous other reforms that are needed, because they make worse the difference between the rich and the poor.

Religion

One of the strangest, and most amusing, phenomena of our times is how Fundamentalist Christians support our ultra-conservative administration so enthusiastically!  As a former Christian who knew his New Testament a heckuva lot better than most modern Bible Thumpers, I just can't take these jokers seriously.  If any of my readers happens to be a believing Christian, I do not meant to insult you, unless you agree with or support the current administration, and who considers our present Leader to be God's Gift to Believers.  Trump is clearly an agnostic, if not an outright atheist, and certainly a cynic and a hypocrite, but having received the anointment of the Conservative Christian Leaders, the Followers bend their knee, however reluctantly, until such time as he might fall out of favor.

Now, thinking about engaging our friends and acquaintances one-on-one, it certainly seems to me that they're not going to give the time of day to a confessed atheist.  The minute I reveal that I'm a born-again atheist, I may as well be talking to the trees.  Most, if not all, Fundamentalist Christians have a very poor background in science, even if not all of them believe in a Flat Earth, and can't argue their way out of a scientific paper bag.  But, to their great relief, they can cut down the number of those who would argue against their most fond 'scientific' beliefs, by first checking to see if the person concerned is an atheist, in which case, they can consider him or her to be sent by the devil.

I do not like to argue with Fundamentalist Christians, because they do not use logic the same way I do.  I only have experiences with Fundamentalists on Facebook, which is so often a hotbed of illogic.  The fallacies these people dream up are pathetic and laughable.  One thing of which I live in fear is that the legal profession will be taken over by Fundamental Christians, and then we may as well shoot ourselves.  (I hope none of them are reading this, or that's what they will certainly do; and we can say goodbye to the courts.)

So, dear friends, someone has to talk nicely to these Christian types, but it won't be me.

Education

The problem of messaging has, in a way, raised its ugly head in Education.

Just as most people are unwilling to listen to anything except what they want to hear, something similar has happened in education.  Students are unwilling to listen to any lesson except about something they know already.  Of course, there is a general principle in education: From the known, to the unknown.  This is good advice to anybody who wants to explain something to someone.  Unfortunately, today's youth want you to STOP the second you depart from the realm of the familiar.

It was terrible in mathematics.  I begin teaching something, starting from the familiar.  Soon--too soon--I go into a topic that is unfamiliar.  There's a good reason it is unfamiliar even if it is firmly within the high-school curriculum, or even the Middle School curriculum: it is probably a topic of which the school teachers are scared of, or uncertain about.  "That isn't even math!" my students exclaim indignantly.  "You're trying to teach us something from, like, PhD level, or something!"

There's no point telling them that it is Trigonometry, which is used to calculate the circumference of a circle, and so on.  If they haven't seen it already, then they do not want to see it.  So they want to take a vote whether or not this topic should be discarded!

Things did not become that hilariously extreme routinely.  But there is absolutely no doubt that unfamiliar material is considered inessential.  This is why we cannot have students establishing the curriculum; at least not typical students.

Wishing you a happy end of the week,

Arch

A Quick Look at ‘Medicare For All’ a.k.a. M4A

There are reams and reams of words written about why Bernie Sanders's proposal of Medicare For All—abbreviated as M4A—is going to be prohibitively expensive.  The information that follows is taken from here: Thanks to the Koch Brothers, We Have More Proof that Single Payer Saves Money and Cares for All of Us, an article dated July 31, 2018, taken from The Nation. I must go back and read more carefully, but the gist of this article is as follows.

Paul Ryan, who was then Speaker of the House, supposedly read a report commissioned by the Koch Brothers, from a think-tank at George Mason University, which Ryan and other conservatives cheered as supporting their hostility to universal health care.  Paul Ryan reported that the cost for expanding Medicare to everyone would be $32.6 Trillion over ten years.  (Why do they always report it that way?  I assume it means $3.26 Trillion a year.  Jeeze.)  Their point was that even doubling everyone's taxes wouldn't pay for it.

But, the report says,

... under the Sanders plan “national personal health care costs decrease by less than 2 percent, while total health expenditures decrease by only 4 percent, even after assuming substantial administrative cost savings.” 

Now, the big question is—and both the report and the analyses of it seem to think that this is obvious, but it isn't to me—is 2%, or 4%, or our present annual expenses, less than $3.26 a year?  If we spend presently, all of us, as a nation, more than $3.3 trillion a year on health care, then we may redirect that money into the Medicare For All plan, and still be up on the deal.  Rich folk who get super expensive health care presently, will contribute some of that health care money in taxes, the poor, who get no health care, or cheap health care will pay that money into the IRS, and still get more health care than they're getting at present, and whatever money is left over in the purses of the super rich can be spent for additional insurance, so that anyone who wants can get replacement knees every other year, or whatever.

But for this argument to work, we need to find out how much we pay presently, as a nation, for healthcare.  I Googled this question, and you can, too.  It turns out that, as a nation, and as individuals and corporations, we spend $3.5 trillion already.  Clearly, Bernie's plan will not cost more than we pay presently; it costs less. 

I'm not sure whether the Koch study deliberately tried to fool the public, or whether they were looking at different numbers, or whether they assumed that the new Medicare expenses would be in addition to their present expenses, or what.  Basically, our money (if we have insurance) goes to taxes, rather than to health insurance, and the Government insures us.  Those of us who support Medicare For All simply considers that this is one of the things the Government should be doing.

One of the comments at the bottom of the article hits the nail on the political head.

[L]et’s not lose sight of the fact that the fight for single payer is basically a class struggle. Americans want healthcare, but the 1% want to protect what they consider their right to profit from the current system.
Single payer is a social system which provides healthcare to everyone with the costs spread across the population; basically a non-profit system. Whereas, our current system is a market system which primarily provides a source of private profit and healthcare is secondary. [Boldface is mine.]
...
Lastly, many American corporations would be more competitive if freed from the excessive costs of providing healthcare insurance for their employees, because companies in Canada, Europe, and Japan pay much less.

This commenter also pointed out that Society is also about solidarity, about building solutions together.  But the present system in the US firstly about profiting from the sickness of the customers, and secondly about providing health services.

I want to add that, at least in some sorts of services, Medicare needs less annoying paperwork than ordinary insurance needs.  On the other hand, the profits health insurance companies get out of patients feeds, clothes, and houses, thousands of people across the country.

Note: according to Google, the Health Insurance Industry employs around 2.66 million people.  So the industry does provide a lot of employment to our friends.  If you have a friend employed in the Health Insurance Industry, your attitude towards Medicare For All might be different.  But bear in mind that the number of people employed by Medicare will increase somewhat; possibly by as many as 2.6 million, possibly by fewer.  Possibly by more, because private employers invariably try to get more work out of fewer people.

Arch